Transcript Analysis of longer-term recovery following disasters

1
ANALYSIS OF LONGER-TERM
RECOVERY FOLLOWING
DISASTERS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COLLABORATION AND
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Dr. Louis Lebel, Director, Unit for Social and Environmental
Research (USER), Chiang Mai University, Thailand
[email protected], [email protected]
Drawing on new APN project led by Frank Thomalla (SEI)
with Win Htut Aung (ADRI), Ham Kimkong (RUPP),
Saradhorn Boontaveeyuwat (KU), Bach Tan Sinh
(NISTPASS), Agus Nugroho (SEI) and Louis Lebel (CMU)
2
Outline
• A long-term view where
disaster are expected
• Aims of a new APN project
on recovery
• Methodological issues
• Collaboration opportunities
Source: World Bank & Jakarta Post
APN Study
Why a longer-term perspective?
• important to learn more about recovery phase post-
disaster given the likelihood of increasing climate change
related disasters in the future
• it is possible to ‘build back better’ but doing so requires
integrated planning that addresses local needs
• Livelihood restoration
• Local knowledge and meaningful participation
• But many recovery processes fail to build resilience
• Local adaptive capacities
• Poor coordination and patchy support
• Promises not kept, plans not followed through
• Transition from short-term relief to redevelopment ‘botched’
• In a long-term view disasters are ‘expected’
3
APN Study
Questions about recovery
1. What are the main loss and damage systems involved
2.
3.
4.
5.
in post-disaster recovery
What formal promises were made and objectives set for
recovery and what role were loss and damage systems
expected to play?
Did recovery programs and loss and damage systems
meet their objectives?
What are the greatest achievements and challenges in
building disaster resilience post-event over 5-10 years?;
What other factors influence the success of
interventions? Have interventions increased resilience?
4
APN Study
Study design
• Case studies of major disasters “10” years after, in 5 countries,
most likely from :
•
•
•
•
2008 Cyclone Nargis (Myanmar)
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (Indonesia)
2004 Typhoon Winnie (Philippines)
2001 Mekong delta floods (Vietnam, Cambodia)
• To potentially inform/reflect on “early” recovery process from:
• 2011 Bangkok floods (Thailand)
• 2011 Tohuku earthquake & Tsunami (Japan)
• 2013 Typhoon Haiyan (Philippines)
• Follow shared case-study protocol
• Qualitative methods: review and content analysis of documents
and key informant interviews
5
Method issues
Method issue 1: Counterfactuals
• How can you attribute effects to loss and damage
systems during recovery?
• Is the loss or damage in excess of adaptation efforts?
• What do you compare with what?
• What are limits of: before AND after?
• Is it possible to compare locations to strengthen analysis?
• With and without a particular L&D system?
• More and less impacted by a disaster?
• With and without CC adaptation effort?
• What are good ways to construct ‘counterfactuals’ for
studying the recovery processes following disasters?
6
7
Loss and damage systems
• Irrigation infrastructure that reduce risks from drought
• Climate resilient agriculture that reduces risks
• Early warning systems
• Social safety nets that help cope with impacts
• Informal ‘safety nets’
• Humanitarian aid and charity
• Government relief and compensation schemes
• Re-development and re-construction projects
• Integration of disaster risk reduction into development
• Linking local, national and global systems
• Micro-insurance and other risk transfer instruments
Method issues
Method issue 2: L & D systems
• How do you recognize “loss and damage” systems?
• What are useful boundaries?
• Formal vs. informal systems?
• Pre-event vs. post-event activities?
• How do you assess performance of L&D systems?
• Do they restore or replace livelihoods?
• Do they restore or maintain ecosystems?
• Do they contribute to resilient development?
• Do various L&D systems interact?
• Can they substitute for each other?
• Is some overlap and redundancy a good thing?
• Recovery vs. L&D systems?
8
Method issues
Method issue 3: disasters are normal
• In the long, resilient development-centered, view
‘disasters’ or ‘shocks’ or ‘disturbances’ are normal not
extra-ordinary. They are expected.
• How does ‘acknowledging’ disaster alter way think about
development?
• What does it take to make development ‘resilient’ to climate change
related disasters?
• What analytical frameworks do you need now to explore loss and
damages if take the long view?
• Does it change the questions we should be asking?
9
Collaboration Opportunities
Collaboration Op 1: Comparison
• Comparative studies, meta-analysis and systematic
reviews can help further understanding of L&D
• Structured questionnaire to many L&D researchers about “their”
cases
• Discussed in expert workshops
• A synthesis article
• An edited volume of case studies
• Looking ahead 2 years from now with APN set as starting
point….
10
Collaboration Opportunities
Collaboration Op 2: Agenda setting
• Initial studies on L & D like those represented at this
meeting could be basis for designing and “declaring’ a
new research agenda
• Provocative or stimulating conceptual framework
• Novel and outstanding research questions
• Link in with Future Earth program
• Clear relevance for development AND disaster management
planning
• Providing broader perspective on L & D systems to stimulate/inform
international negotiations
• A position, agenda-setting, paper
11
12
Conclusion
• Longer-term recovery processes following disasters are
under-studied
• Loss and damage systems are diverse and likely to play a
critical role in the “relief to redevelopment” transition
• There are significant methodological challenges in
studying recovery processes and L&D systems, but also
opportunities
• Apologies. This presentation opened up more issues and
questions than it synthesized or answered.